The April verdict by a Frederick County jury that awarded $620,000 to a Taneytown family after their dog was shot by a sheriff's deputy was upheld by a Montgomery County judge.

An attorney for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office argued that the jury's verdict should be set aside because it went against the weight of the evidence presented during the seven-day trial. Michael B. Rynd asked Judge Marielsa Bernard to either set aside the verdict or grant his motion for a new trial.

Bernard heard the case after Frederick County judges recused themselves.

She denied Rynd's motion, saying it would be inappropriate to substitute her judgment for the jury's verdict. She issued her ruling Monday.

Rynd also filed a motion to have the $620,000 judgment lowered.

Bernard agreed with Rynd that Maryland law caps damages for veterinary bills at $7,500 and reduced the original $20,000 for those costs.

The rest of the award, $600,000, was for mental anguish, pain and suffering, according to court records.

Rynd argued that portions of that amount should have been decreased because the jury awarded the exact same amount to each of the two homeowners, Roger and Sandi Jenkins. Sandi Jenkins seemed more upset during testimony at trial, so the damages should be less for her husband, Rynd said.

Bernard denied that part of the motion.

On April 3, a six-person jury found Deputy First Class Timothy Brooks violated the Jenkinses' rights under the Maryland Constitution when he shot their chocolate Labrador retriever, Brandi, on Jan. 9, 2010, while he and Deputy First Class Nathan Rector were at their Bullfrog Road home looking for their son, who was wanted on a civil warrant.

Hey, wait up a sec. Time to buy a trailer out there in the woods, get a dog, chain him up somewhere, and have a friend keep calling the cops to go out to the trailer ~ until one of them shoots the dog.

That'd be a 10 to one return on a small investment ~ can't hardly beat that one no how.

Moral victories do not change policies or the politicians that institute them.

The taxpayers of these districts elected people who put these shoot fog policies in place. It’s up to them to make good on their error. Sucks greatly for those who didn’t vote for them, but elections have consequences.

And it it takes bankrupting towns and cities to teach the lesson, so be it.

Except it does not work that way in real life. The system is what it is. Sucks, but that’s the recourse.

If the law made cops personally liable there would be no cops. Am I happy that taxpayers get screwed? No. But if they keep electing idiot liberals that make dog shooting a priority in contact with the public, they deserve what they get.

Those people are rich~! That's Maryland ~ they've got money for instate tuition for illegal aliens, and free houses for illegal aliens, and free driver's licenses, and free motel rooms, and all sorts of free stuff for all sorts of folks ~ they can pay for somebody's emotional state for having had their dog shot.

No pity at all for Maryland taxpayers. They elect this ring of freaks, now they get to pay for them again.

If I come and wrongly shoot your dog under color of authority, are you supposed to just shut up and take it? Or is the authority that wrongly shot your dog going to be held accountable?

Since the law is that police are not personally liable, you have a choice. use the legal process to toss the idiots that created the shooting gallery mentality and elect people with sense, or pay dearly via taxes every time one of these cops blasts Fido.

Or just say “Yes sir, sorry sir!” and slink off into a sear-filled corner.

Politicians ‘change’ policies like this only when thrown from office or under the very credible threat they will be. Taxpayers only pay attention when their pocketbooks are emptied.

Your way gets dead dogs and incremental increases in governmental overreach. Mine makes voters/taxpayers accountable for the people they elect and the laws/rules they govern by.

If an officer is violating PD policy or the law, he is acting outside his authority & therefore, “on his own”. Whether he is shooting a dog or a child, if he is committing a crime, no uniform or badge should exempt him from criminal & civil penalties.

If that means no one wants to be a policeman (I seriously doubt that), then we are better off in a society with fewer policemen & where personal responsibility is still supreme. No one should be exempt from their deadly actions.

34
posted on 09/22/2012 2:33:48 PM PDT
by Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)

What kind of individual shoots a choc lab? A miserable sumbitch who happens to be a jack booted thug cop.Unreal.The taxpayers are the ones that voted in that kind of nonsense so they get the bill.Fitting.

Here’s your problem:
“Resentment is like taking a poison and waiting for the other person to die.”
- Malachy McCourt

The CONSERVATIVE position - which is news to you:

TORT REFORM

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Gingrich has been a clear and consistent advocate for lawsuit abuse reform for years. The Common Sense Legal Reform Act was part of the Contract with America in 1994, and was passed by both the House and Senate, but vetoed by President Bill Clinton. The bill would have reformed the tort system by penalizing frivolous and predatory lawsuits by imposing loser pays rules and capping punitive damages.

Its not news to me smart ass.Tort reform would be an excellent idea and the only problem is that most of the politicians are liars/lawyers and will not pass it.So you are left with the only recourse of jury awards against the perps in this case(cops).If you get in the wallet you will effect change.

Donna, Whether you like it or not and your unique views of what conservatism constitutes aside, it is the responsibility of THE PEOPLE to restrain their government. The tools available are the ballot box and the courts. Then CW2.

Tort reform is great. I’m all for it. But RIGHT NOW the rules/laws are what they are and no conservative in their right mind refuses to use them ‘just cuz’.

If people refuse to live up to their responsibilities and vote out/down pols and laws that harm them, they should pay the cost of their decision.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.